Tsunami preparedness of people living in affected and non-affected areas: A comparative study in coastal area in Aceh, Indonesia

Abstract

The aims of this descriptive comparative study are to describe the levels of tsunami disaster preparedness of people living in areas affected and nonaffected by the December 2004 tsunami, and to compare the tsunami disaster preparedness of these two groups of people. A total of 304 subjects were recruited using a multistage-stratified random sampling from both of the areas along the west coast of Aceh Province. The Individual's Tsunami Preparedness Questionnaire was developed by the researcher and validated by three experts yielding a content validity index (CVI) of .95. Test-retest was performed with reliability coefficients for knowledge, individual emergency planning, and resource mobilization capacity of .99, 1, and .99, respectively. The Individual's Tsunami Preparedness Questionnaire was used to measure the subjects' knowledge, individual emergency planning, and resource mobilization capacity related to tsunami preparedness. The findings showed a moderate level of tsunami preparedness of people living in both areas including the variables that cover knowledge, individual emergency planning, and resources mobilization capacity. The mean scores for each variable of people living in affected areas were significantly higher than people living in non-affected areas (p <.05). Sub-variables were also at higher mean scores except one of the sub-variables, individual emergency planning: "skills related to disaster preparedness", that was at a lower mean score. This study provided evidence that direct experience for the people living in affected area and indirect tsunami experience for the people living in non-affected area has a significant impact on people's tsunami preparedness.

The Role of Education on Disaster Preparedness: Case Study of 2012 Indian Ocean Earthquakes on Thailand's Andaman Coast

“…Likewise, catastrophes from a tsunami, a massive wave caused by undersea earthquakes, can be mitigated or avoided through effective warning systems. Indeed, the catastrophic loss of the Indian Ocean Tsunami of December 2004 was largely due to the absence of warning systems, lack of knowledge, and lack of preparedness among the populations at risk (Rachmalia et al 2011).In contrast, in Japan's Tohoku earthquake on 11 March 2011, the effectiveness of local emergency warning systems and disaster preparedness among Japanese citizens saved many lives, despite the short time between the quake and the tsunami. These examples illustrate that personal disaster preparedness is critical to mitigate disaster impacts.…”

Perception of the risk of tsunami in a context of high-level risk assessment and management: the case of the fjord Lyngen in Norway

“…3). The scar of this rockslide, just a few miles outside Lyngseidet, could be seen by schools directly in the field, because indirect experience with a past tsunami increases the awareness of people in as yet unaffected areas (Rachmalia et al 2011). A survey conducted in Norway into rockslide tsunami risk also showed that those people who were willing to follow evacuation instructions lived in places where identical disasters had already occurred (Rød et al 2012).…”

Preparedness Measures for Emergency and Disaster Response

“…Two examples of more practically useful definitions are "Tsunami preparedness refers to an individual's perception of the extent of being prepared to confront with future tsunami." (Rachmalia et al 2011) and "Strategic preparedness connotes a set of policies, plans, and supporting infrastructure that is implemented in advance of a natural or man-made disaster." (Haimes et al 2008).…”

“… (Personal) tsunami preparedness: Knowledge, individual emergency planning and resource mobilization capacity (Rachmalia et al 2011).  (Personal) hurricane preparedness: Food for three days, flashlight with batteries for three days, medicines, drinkable water, important papers on hand, an outdoor grill, a generator (Baker 2011).…”

“…For instance, the indicator Knowledge, used in Rachmalia et al (2011), was measured using a questionnaire where each respondent got a score depending on the level of knowledge. It is also necessary to select indicators for which reliable data is available, or possible to collect.…”